First, all the things you specified requires a user to come onto your property without authorization to obtain them. Radio frequencies spill onto adjacent properties unless you make an effort to prevent that from happening, with lower power or physical barriers (wet concrete walls or Faraday cages.) So it isn't a good comparison.
But beyond that, unsecured wireless connections usually have a DHCP server running on them that is in essence advertising access and providing IP addresses to any takers. So if you do nothing to secure your wireless network, and someone connects using a DHCP aware client, then you have invited them to use your internet access.
Now if you have wireless without an encryption key, and you've changed the SSID to , or you have IP filtering, or MAC filtering, or don't have a DHCP server running and are statically setting IP addresses on clients, and someone connects to your wireless by setting their IP or MAC address to a known good IP or MAC on your network, then maybe I can agree with your reasoning.
Where are you getting a Vibrant for $100? Right now if you purchase it on a new 2 year contract or eligible upgrade, it is $200 after instant and mail in rebates. Even if you are a Costco member, the lowest contract price is $130.
As a guy, I prefer to carry my phone in my pocket to be sure it doesn't get knocked out of a holster, and because seeing middle aged overweight balding men with Blackberries holstered to their side and a Bluetooth headset hanging out of their ear always seemed slightly toolish, like wearing a pocket protector as a kid. Anything that makes the phone bigger (like a case) isn't welcome. Though I am also carrying a used G1, so my investment isn't as great, and it is pretty big already. Perhaps I'd change my mind if I had a new and smaller $400 phone.
And some group would NOT have been better off until 6 decades after the fact, which was far from obvious that would happen at all at the time.
The money line was -
While American political philosophy has evolved to justify that the winners of that war were unquestionably right, as all victors claim to be, it was a complex issue in its day and remains so.
That is obviously implying that British had reasons for maintaining the colonies, while Americans prevailed to the detriment of the aforementioned parties, and have revised their history to suggest they were in the right.
While he didn't directly say the British wanted to keep the colonies to protect slaves, I believe that is what a vast majority of readers would (rightly or wrongly) take away. There doesn't seem any reason to bring it up at this point unless he was trying to subtly mislead.
Not ridiculous at all, that was the patently obvious implication of DonScarletti's post.
Britain did mostly abolish slavery about 57 years after the United States gained its independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833. Slaves would have probably been better off under British rule several decades in the future, to the extent the British were willing to enforce a law in a distant colony that was somewhat detrimental to economic performance. But to imply the British disdain for granting American independence because the British government didn't feel we were socially ready for self-governance, is also a striking example of revisionist history. When the British were fighting the American Revolution, they had NO intention that they were doing it for the slaves. Slavery would still be legal in Britain for nearly 6 decades more.
Do you really think that will happen in every place?
Many residential customers have the choice of slow DSL, moderately expensive cable internet, and very expensive and slow satellite internet. Count yourself lucky if Clear or another WWAN provider offers service in your area.
I'm not saying this is a great idea for an authentication system, but why wouldn't you include with this logarithmic rate limiting or account disabling with incorrect guesses? Additional security measures with this shouldn't be different than any other well designed password or token based system.
As someone else brought up, this would lock passengers out of texting too. It perfectly illustrates a rant I was ready to fire off to Toyota before their PR meltdown. I was riding shotgun in a friend's new Toyota trying to set up his phone to radio Bluetooth. It wasn't working, so I deleted the phone and tried to re-pair it, until the radio said this function was unavailable with the car in motion. GDI, as a driver I can decide when it is safe to do something or face the consequences, and there is no reason as collateral damage their "safety feature" should negatively affect passenger's operation of features.
I was going to tell them it would be a cold day in hell before I bought one of their cars if they treat their buyers like this, but when their little disaster broke, I figured they had bigger fish to fry and my letter was even more likely to hit the circular filing cabinet.
The same goes with all those OEM navigation units. I'd NEVER buy one that requires you to press a button every time you start the car, saying you understand operating this feature can be dangerous with the car in motion (looking at you in particular HONDA!!!) I'm ok with pressing that button once after every battery disconnection and then storing it as a preference, or maybe doing it ONCE a year no matter what, but NO more often than that. I don't care if your company lawyers told you to avoid liability of stupid operators this was required. They can lawyer me right out of being willing to purchase your overpriced PITA "feature".
And WTF should I have to keep my own records and balance my checkbook every month? That's something that should be automated. All I should need to do is verify that the charge I placed (especially at places where you manually add tip after the fact) is the charge debited against my account.
If we are talking about checks that can't be preauthorized, then I am fine with substantial overdraft fees as a courtesy, and giving me time to fix it, rather than sending my check to the local DA right away. But debit cards are preauthorized for the amount and completely automated. Banks should be required to provide a choice to decline on NSF for no fee, or to provide a cover loan at high interest rate. There is no excuse for them not doing this other than trying to gouge customers with fees.
*I say this being a person who pays everything by credit card, pays the credit card off entirely every month, never puts my debit card in anything but an ATM, and always has more than sufficient funds to pay every check and debit against my main checking account. The only time i've had NSF charges was on my spare checking account used only for PayPal. When I discovered that Chase paid these debits, rather than reporting NSF to PayPal so it would go onto my next funding source, I was livid. I promptly paid the fee and left my account at zero balance. I still need to go cancel it, but I'm in no hurry.
Please note, my fine state of Texas, with the seemingly highest ratio of Teaparty redneck gunslingers to normal people, was uninvolved in this ongoing fiasco.
First, "Obama" (really the US Legislature) wouldn't have this revenue to stimulate with. That titillating pleasure would go to Governor of Washington Chris Gregoire. Second, if the choice were Balmer and Obama, I'd say Obama would more likely spend it in a manner that benefits the most people in the USA; just look at the value of Micrsoft stock since Balmer took the reigns at MS.
Third, why does every time taxation and government spending come up, does Obama get blamed? Taxes were too low during the GB43 admin to support the level of spending his administration endorsed. The proposed increases in taxes of the Obama administration would be lower than during the Reagan administration. And a vast majority of the spending that has so far occurred during the Obama administration was congressionally scheduled spending from the GB43 administration. And of the remaining optional government spend, it went toward correcting the GB43 caused recession.
Very true. But I still think each mobile phone operator should make a best effort to secure their part of the GSM network, and that includes their carrier sold phones to require an encrypted wireless channel to the base station, and any picocells they provide to encrypt traffic over its backhaul. Doing these 2 things would make a mobile to mobile or VOIP phone call relatively secure against all but the government and really motivated private parties.
I figured it was like the proposed magicjack femtocell, where you have to grant permission for your phone to connect to the femtocell, so a femtocell owner couldn't add your phone as an allowed device without your knowledge. If not, eavesdropping could perhaps be a concern.
But AT&T should have really configured the femtocell to require phones connecting to it set up an encrypted wireless channel, and all the backhaul from the femtocell to the AT&T network over your broadband should also be strongly encrypted with something like SSL, which would make the femtocell traffic as resistant to eavesdropping as the native network.
One known and demonstrated eavesdropping concern that most GSM network owners haven't bothered to fix yet is that a nefarious person could set up a malicious femtocell that looks like a native GSM base station, which provides only an unencrypted wireless channel, and passes the traffic on to the POTS network through Asterisk (so nothing would seem strange to the user), after copying the unencrypted voice or data stream. The GSM network isn't set up to do bidirectional authentication (only one way), and most phones are set to allow wireless unencrypted channels to provide the greatest compatibility with non-native base stations.
Well, the AT&T femtocell only allows registered cellphones on it, so the issue about bad connection or eavesdropping is irrelevant. You bought it, so if your connection didn't work well with it, you probably immediately returned it. And it is your broadband service so you'd be eavesdropping on yourself. Bad connection to foreign femtocells could be an issue if AT&T allowed any cellphone to connect. But the data transferred over the broadband connection should be strongly encrypted, so eavesdropping should really never be a problem.
He doesn't have control of the email address used at Registrar B, or the signin information to Registrar B's control panel, to kill or redirect the DNS entries. About the only thing he could do is contact one of those unscrupulous registrar companies that tries to get you to renew your DNS by mail with them, and ask them to send a renew request to the address on file at Registar B (which is his mailing address). Then he could maybe use that to gain control of the DNS entry if it isn't locked by Registrar B.
Say it with me people. This management reporting computer that had the trojan was not mission critical. It was on the ground, received alerts on discrepancies from the airplanes for later review, but did not affect the operation of the aircraft in any way.
I remember that happening. It is much more contained than I expected it to be. It looks like a 40 meter right-of-way would have worked in that situation to protect structures and people not onboard. I wonder if the limited spread of the debris is typical or unusual.
Why couldn't you compromise by running the larger radii of HSR and less steep gradients of freight? Also why is the LGV right-of-way 40 meters? Is it in case of a derailment and protecting nearby people and structures? If so, even 40 meters seems insufficient. Otherwise the right-of-way seems like it could be much smaller. And freight lines could sit in the right-of-way of the HSR.
...there is only one citation for this claim that Southwest scuttled the THSRA, to a broken link of a 2009 HSIPR application form. Exactly what legal barriers were erected? As I recall, the real death of the project was that private funds were unable to be secured, and they unsuccessfully lobbied for direct funding through law change or additional subsides and preferential financial treatment.
Of course Herb Kelleher was going to lobby as a citizen to protect what he felt like was the Texas government assisting a group of extremely wealthy companies from threating a profitable route for a still small airline he built from scratch. But did he really do anything that could be considered anti-competitive or untoward? He was no stranger to legal and political harassment. When starting Southwest, Braniff, United, and Trans-Texas among others sued for 3 years to keep the airline grounded. It was so bad, they got an injunction from a Texas judge against those airlines from filing any more suits. I believe that was a first ever for a Texas court to issue an injunction preventing one company from suing another. The Wright Amendment was another example of political wrangling meant to limit Southwest's growth.
I've searched with very limited success, for more information on the THSRA before after seeing the Wiki article, and also reading interviews with Herb Kelleher where he said that while the funding would have originated from private sources, there were inherent subsidies and loan guarantees costing over $100 per person per trip on the line. He told the THSRA (with his tongue firmly in cheek) that they'd save a lot of money buying every one of their potential travelers a full fare ticket (about $90) on his airline.
I'd like to learn more about what actually happened during this time, as I was still in High School and only vaguely remember the stories in the newspaper. I don't argue that having HSR in Texas would be nice. And I don't know that Southwest would be that opposed to it now that they focus on medium and long routes, since traveling short distances by plane is less attractive because of higher costs and longer times through security.
Disclaimer - Texas resident since 1976, Southwest Employee since 2001.
It shouldn't be either or. You should have 2 or 3 (or more in really heavily trafficed areas) co-runs of track so you can run any combination of freight or passenger traffic you need to.
The largest cost is land acquisition and legal wrangling with property owners, along with construction concessions to not disrupt city life too much. After you get out of the expensive city center and suburbs, I would imagine it is pretty cheap to run the track if you stick to buying along current right of ways so you don't massively disrupt people's land layouts. This is also assuming you don't insist on concrete retaining walls and chain link fencing on both sides, and doing every current road crossing above or below grade.
Dallas massively over-engineered their city light rail service. I just got back from Chicago and thought man, if we had done it like their heavy rail service Metra (that has had a century of good rail service) it would have cost half as much.
I agree getting around in most large US cities is exception rather than the rule, unless you want to deal with dirty and inconvenient city bus service. But I just spent the weekend in Chicago without a car and had a great time without feeling unduly restricted. My friend lives in Palo Alto and says he really doesn't need his car there. My brother is going to visit him, and he will fly into SFO or SJC and ride the train over. So it is possible in a few places if you don't need to travel outside the city center.
There is non-high-speed passenger service that runs this trip (not all the same stops, but it has many more in the Podunk towns between). In 2000, I road it between FTW and SAS. It took 12 hours exactly and cost $30. It was fun for a while, but got boring quickly because I was alone. Now I see you can still do it, but they've apparently cut out a lot of stops. It costs $48 and takes 7 hours. It stops in DAL afterward adding another 1hr 20 min. Getting off in DAL actually reduces the fare by $10. http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak . I'd do it again if I had a traveling companion.
As far as all the stops you suggest, I'd submit it wouldn't be worth doing on a high speed train if you include all these stops. You'd end up with a 12 hour trip again because of the stopping, boarding, and getting back up to speed. Low speed service would be good enough on that kind of trip. A high speed train could go San Antonio to Dallas with stops at Austin, Waco and Fort Worth only and still get you there in a reasonable amount of time.
Slashdot Mirror
First, all the things you specified requires a user to come onto your property without authorization to obtain them. Radio frequencies spill onto adjacent properties unless you make an effort to prevent that from happening, with lower power or physical barriers (wet concrete walls or Faraday cages.) So it isn't a good comparison.
But beyond that, unsecured wireless connections usually have a DHCP server running on them that is in essence advertising access and providing IP addresses to any takers. So if you do nothing to secure your wireless network, and someone connects using a DHCP aware client, then you have invited them to use your internet access.
Now if you have wireless without an encryption key, and you've changed the SSID to , or you have IP filtering, or MAC filtering, or don't have a DHCP server running and are statically setting IP addresses on clients, and someone connects to your wireless by setting their IP or MAC address to a known good IP or MAC on your network, then maybe I can agree with your reasoning.
Where are you getting a Vibrant for $100? Right now if you purchase it on a new 2 year contract or eligible upgrade, it is $200 after instant and mail in rebates. Even if you are a Costco member, the lowest contract price is $130.
As a guy, I prefer to carry my phone in my pocket to be sure it doesn't get knocked out of a holster, and because seeing middle aged overweight balding men with Blackberries holstered to their side and a Bluetooth headset hanging out of their ear always seemed slightly toolish, like wearing a pocket protector as a kid. Anything that makes the phone bigger (like a case) isn't welcome. Though I am also carrying a used G1, so my investment isn't as great, and it is pretty big already. Perhaps I'd change my mind if I had a new and smaller $400 phone.
The money line was -
While American political philosophy has evolved to justify that the winners of that war were unquestionably right, as all victors claim to be, it was a complex issue in its day and remains so.
That is obviously implying that British had reasons for maintaining the colonies, while Americans prevailed to the detriment of the aforementioned parties, and have revised their history to suggest they were in the right.
While he didn't directly say the British wanted to keep the colonies to protect slaves, I believe that is what a vast majority of readers would (rightly or wrongly) take away. There doesn't seem any reason to bring it up at this point unless he was trying to subtly mislead.
No scarecrows in sight.
Not ridiculous at all, that was the patently obvious implication of DonScarletti's post.
Britain did mostly abolish slavery about 57 years after the United States gained its independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833. Slaves would have probably been better off under British rule several decades in the future, to the extent the British were willing to enforce a law in a distant colony that was somewhat detrimental to economic performance. But to imply the British disdain for granting American independence because the British government didn't feel we were socially ready for self-governance, is also a striking example of revisionist history. When the British were fighting the American Revolution, they had NO intention that they were doing it for the slaves. Slavery would still be legal in Britain for nearly 6 decades more.
Do you really think that will happen in every place?
Many residential customers have the choice of slow DSL, moderately expensive cable internet, and very expensive and slow satellite internet. Count yourself lucky if Clear or another WWAN provider offers service in your area.
I'm not saying this is a great idea for an authentication system, but why wouldn't you include with this logarithmic rate limiting or account disabling with incorrect guesses? Additional security measures with this shouldn't be different than any other well designed password or token based system.
As someone else brought up, this would lock passengers out of texting too. It perfectly illustrates a rant I was ready to fire off to Toyota before their PR meltdown. I was riding shotgun in a friend's new Toyota trying to set up his phone to radio Bluetooth. It wasn't working, so I deleted the phone and tried to re-pair it, until the radio said this function was unavailable with the car in motion. GDI, as a driver I can decide when it is safe to do something or face the consequences, and there is no reason as collateral damage their "safety feature" should negatively affect passenger's operation of features.
I was going to tell them it would be a cold day in hell before I bought one of their cars if they treat their buyers like this, but when their little disaster broke, I figured they had bigger fish to fry and my letter was even more likely to hit the circular filing cabinet.
The same goes with all those OEM navigation units. I'd NEVER buy one that requires you to press a button every time you start the car, saying you understand operating this feature can be dangerous with the car in motion (looking at you in particular HONDA!!!) I'm ok with pressing that button once after every battery disconnection and then storing it as a preference, or maybe doing it ONCE a year no matter what, but NO more often than that. I don't care if your company lawyers told you to avoid liability of stupid operators this was required. They can lawyer me right out of being willing to purchase your overpriced PITA "feature".
And WTF should I have to keep my own records and balance my checkbook every month? That's something that should be automated. All I should need to do is verify that the charge I placed (especially at places where you manually add tip after the fact) is the charge debited against my account.
If we are talking about checks that can't be preauthorized, then I am fine with substantial overdraft fees as a courtesy, and giving me time to fix it, rather than sending my check to the local DA right away. But debit cards are preauthorized for the amount and completely automated. Banks should be required to provide a choice to decline on NSF for no fee, or to provide a cover loan at high interest rate. There is no excuse for them not doing this other than trying to gouge customers with fees.
*I say this being a person who pays everything by credit card, pays the credit card off entirely every month, never puts my debit card in anything but an ATM, and always has more than sufficient funds to pay every check and debit against my main checking account. The only time i've had NSF charges was on my spare checking account used only for PayPal. When I discovered that Chase paid these debits, rather than reporting NSF to PayPal so it would go onto my next funding source, I was livid. I promptly paid the fee and left my account at zero balance. I still need to go cancel it, but I'm in no hurry.
Please note, my fine state of Texas, with the seemingly highest ratio of Teaparty redneck gunslingers to normal people, was uninvolved in this ongoing fiasco.
First, "Obama" (really the US Legislature) wouldn't have this revenue to stimulate with. That titillating pleasure would go to Governor of Washington Chris Gregoire. Second, if the choice were Balmer and Obama, I'd say Obama would more likely spend it in a manner that benefits the most people in the USA; just look at the value of Micrsoft stock since Balmer took the reigns at MS.
Third, why does every time taxation and government spending come up, does Obama get blamed? Taxes were too low during the GB43 admin to support the level of spending his administration endorsed. The proposed increases in taxes of the Obama administration would be lower than during the Reagan administration. And a vast majority of the spending that has so far occurred during the Obama administration was congressionally scheduled spending from the GB43 administration. And of the remaining optional government spend, it went toward correcting the GB43 caused recession.
I wish I had a -1 Space Cadet for you...
Very true. But I still think each mobile phone operator should make a best effort to secure their part of the GSM network, and that includes their carrier sold phones to require an encrypted wireless channel to the base station, and any picocells they provide to encrypt traffic over its backhaul. Doing these 2 things would make a mobile to mobile or VOIP phone call relatively secure against all but the government and really motivated private parties.
I figured it was like the proposed magicjack femtocell, where you have to grant permission for your phone to connect to the femtocell, so a femtocell owner couldn't add your phone as an allowed device without your knowledge. If not, eavesdropping could perhaps be a concern.
But AT&T should have really configured the femtocell to require phones connecting to it set up an encrypted wireless channel, and all the backhaul from the femtocell to the AT&T network over your broadband should also be strongly encrypted with something like SSL, which would make the femtocell traffic as resistant to eavesdropping as the native network.
One known and demonstrated eavesdropping concern that most GSM network owners haven't bothered to fix yet is that a nefarious person could set up a malicious femtocell that looks like a native GSM base station, which provides only an unencrypted wireless channel, and passes the traffic on to the POTS network through Asterisk (so nothing would seem strange to the user), after copying the unencrypted voice or data stream. The GSM network isn't set up to do bidirectional authentication (only one way), and most phones are set to allow wireless unencrypted channels to provide the greatest compatibility with non-native base stations.
Well, the AT&T femtocell only allows registered cellphones on it, so the issue about bad connection or eavesdropping is irrelevant. You bought it, so if your connection didn't work well with it, you probably immediately returned it. And it is your broadband service so you'd be eavesdropping on yourself. Bad connection to foreign femtocells could be an issue if AT&T allowed any cellphone to connect. But the data transferred over the broadband connection should be strongly encrypted, so eavesdropping should really never be a problem.
I don't think so if he retains all information about his contact with Registrar B to gain control of the DNS record.
He doesn't have control of the email address used at Registrar B, or the signin information to Registrar B's control panel, to kill or redirect the DNS entries. About the only thing he could do is contact one of those unscrupulous registrar companies that tries to get you to renew your DNS by mail with them, and ask them to send a renew request to the address on file at Registar B (which is his mailing address). Then he could maybe use that to gain control of the DNS entry if it isn't locked by Registrar B.
http://www.tmonews.com/2010/05/android-uma-phones-coming-soon/
Dreams are less vivid with age.
Say it with me people. This management reporting computer that had the trojan was not mission critical. It was on the ground, received alerts on discrepancies from the airplanes for later review, but did not affect the operation of the aircraft in any way.
I remember that happening. It is much more contained than I expected it to be. It looks like a 40 meter right-of-way would have worked in that situation to protect structures and people not onboard. I wonder if the limited spread of the debris is typical or unusual.
Why couldn't you compromise by running the larger radii of HSR and less steep gradients of freight? Also why is the LGV right-of-way 40 meters? Is it in case of a derailment and protecting nearby people and structures? If so, even 40 meters seems insufficient. Otherwise the right-of-way seems like it could be much smaller. And freight lines could sit in the right-of-way of the HSR.
...there is only one citation for this claim that Southwest scuttled the THSRA, to a broken link of a 2009 HSIPR application form. Exactly what legal barriers were erected? As I recall, the real death of the project was that private funds were unable to be secured, and they unsuccessfully lobbied for direct funding through law change or additional subsides and preferential financial treatment.
Of course Herb Kelleher was going to lobby as a citizen to protect what he felt like was the Texas government assisting a group of extremely wealthy companies from threating a profitable route for a still small airline he built from scratch. But did he really do anything that could be considered anti-competitive or untoward? He was no stranger to legal and political harassment. When starting Southwest, Braniff, United, and Trans-Texas among others sued for 3 years to keep the airline grounded. It was so bad, they got an injunction from a Texas judge against those airlines from filing any more suits. I believe that was a first ever for a Texas court to issue an injunction preventing one company from suing another. The Wright Amendment was another example of political wrangling meant to limit Southwest's growth.
I've searched with very limited success, for more information on the THSRA before after seeing the Wiki article, and also reading interviews with Herb Kelleher where he said that while the funding would have originated from private sources, there were inherent subsidies and loan guarantees costing over $100 per person per trip on the line. He told the THSRA (with his tongue firmly in cheek) that they'd save a lot of money buying every one of their potential travelers a full fare ticket (about $90) on his airline.
I'd like to learn more about what actually happened during this time, as I was still in High School and only vaguely remember the stories in the newspaper. I don't argue that having HSR in Texas would be nice. And I don't know that Southwest would be that opposed to it now that they focus on medium and long routes, since traveling short distances by plane is less attractive because of higher costs and longer times through security.
Disclaimer - Texas resident since 1976, Southwest Employee since 2001.
It shouldn't be either or. You should have 2 or 3 (or more in really heavily trafficed areas) co-runs of track so you can run any combination of freight or passenger traffic you need to.
The largest cost is land acquisition and legal wrangling with property owners, along with construction concessions to not disrupt city life too much. After you get out of the expensive city center and suburbs, I would imagine it is pretty cheap to run the track if you stick to buying along current right of ways so you don't massively disrupt people's land layouts. This is also assuming you don't insist on concrete retaining walls and chain link fencing on both sides, and doing every current road crossing above or below grade.
Dallas massively over-engineered their city light rail service. I just got back from Chicago and thought man, if we had done it like their heavy rail service Metra (that has had a century of good rail service) it would have cost half as much.
I agree getting around in most large US cities is exception rather than the rule, unless you want to deal with dirty and inconvenient city bus service. But I just spent the weekend in Chicago without a car and had a great time without feeling unduly restricted. My friend lives in Palo Alto and says he really doesn't need his car there. My brother is going to visit him, and he will fly into SFO or SJC and ride the train over. So it is possible in a few places if you don't need to travel outside the city center.
There is non-high-speed passenger service that runs this trip (not all the same stops, but it has many more in the Podunk towns between). In 2000, I road it between FTW and SAS. It took 12 hours exactly and cost $30. It was fun for a while, but got boring quickly because I was alone. Now I see you can still do it, but they've apparently cut out a lot of stops. It costs $48 and takes 7 hours. It stops in DAL afterward adding another 1hr 20 min. Getting off in DAL actually reduces the fare by $10. http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak . I'd do it again if I had a traveling companion.
As far as all the stops you suggest, I'd submit it wouldn't be worth doing on a high speed train if you include all these stops. You'd end up with a 12 hour trip again because of the stopping, boarding, and getting back up to speed. Low speed service would be good enough on that kind of trip. A high speed train could go San Antonio to Dallas with stops at Austin, Waco and Fort Worth only and still get you there in a reasonable amount of time.